What are the reasons given by the judge in the context of the date of trial for value of a family residence?

The appellant raises two issues as to the sufficiency of the reasons. First, he argues that in deciding to use the date of trial to value the family residence, the judge failed to provide a clear and well reasoned analysis of her basis for distinguishing Slavenova, and Bamford v. Mulyati, 2017 BCSC 945, from the circumstances of this case. This first argument is addressed below. Second, he says the judge’s reasoning on some issues was conclusory and that she failed to explain how she arrived at her conclusions. He argues the judge’s use of terms like, “I am not prepared to find,” or, “I am not persuaded,” without something more is inadequate to satisfy the obligation to provide reasons.

The function of reasons for judgment is to explain “what” the judge decided and “why” she reached that decision. Reasons are not to be read in isolation; they must be considered in the context of the evidence at trial, the live issues and the arguments of the parties: Shannon v. Shannon, 2011 BCCA 397 at para. 5. There is no freestanding right of appeal on the adequacy of reasons even where the logical connection between the evidence and the decision cannot be discerned. As long as the record permits meaningful review, appellate intervention is not required: Shannon at para. 9.